CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 8 July 1999 Matter v. Slovakia - 31534/96 Judgment 5.7.1999 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: violation Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Enforced psychiatric examination: no violation Facts : The case concerned the length of proceedings relating to the decision to deprive the applicant of his legal capacity for mental health reasons. The proceedings began in 1987 and are still pending. They have lasted for more than seven years since the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual petition in March 1992. Law : Article 6 § 1: The Court firstly noted that the proceedings involved the determination of civil rights and obligations, so that Article was applicable. It accepted that the case was of some complexity, but considered that this could not justify their length. It further noted that the applicant had contributed to delays, in refusing to cooperate with medical experts, by challenging certain judges and by asking for the case to be dealt with by a different court. However, the Court identified periods of inactivity for which no satisfactory explanation had been provided by the Government and found that the domestic courts had failed to act with the special diligence required by Article   6 § 1 in cases of this nature. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 8: The Court found that the forcible examination of the applicant in a hospital in 1993 amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his private life. The interference, which the Court considered a serious one, had a legal basis and the Court found no reason to doubt that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the applicant's own rights and health. As to the necessity of the interference, the Court found that it was justified to obtain an expert opinion on the applicant’s mental and recalled that the expert first tried to examine the applicant on a voluntary basis. As the applicant refused, the District Court ordered his examination in a mental hospital and this decision was confirmed by the Regional Court after the applicant’s guardian and the public prosecutor had agreed to such an examination. The District Court invited the applicant twice to submit to the examination in the mental hospital and warned him that, if he did not comply, he could be taken there. The applicant failed to comply and the District Court ordered that he should be taken to the hospital. The applicant was taken to the hospital on 19   August 1993 and was discharged on 2   September 1993, when the examination was concluded. Having regard to the case as a whole, the Court considered that the interference was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, and was therefore “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : no violation (unanimous). Article 41: Since the applicant had not submitted any claim, the Court did not award just satisfaction.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes